Jump to content

Bored tennis player

  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

21 Good

About Bored tennis player

  • Rank

Profile Information

  • School
    Westminster of Augusta
  1. Oops, I didn't realize that was on there, I think I removed it.
  2. In honor of my former high school dropping policy debate , this is the dropbox that I used a couple of years ago. https://www.dropbox.com/sh/fx3wg9z24zf7hi1/AABZdbNmb2Qn2J1OE_2Tu42oa?dl=0 It might be slightly useful, or not, but I thought it would be good to not let all of these things completely disappear
  3. This sounds cool. I applied a couple of weeks ago & if I get enough money/get in, I definitely would like to debate there.
  4. Science diplomacy is integral to our foreign policy – it’s the underpinning of all diplomacy Campbell, 10 – president and CEO of CRDF Global, an independent nonprofit organization that promotes international scientific and technical collaboration [October 27, 2010, Cathy Campbell, “Send in the Scientists,†Science Progress, http://www.scienceprogress.org/2010/10/send_scientists/] Scientists as diplomats? Beyond longstanding cross-border, science-specific collaboration, the role of individual scientists representing the United States abroad would not immediately jump out as the best use of U.S. government resources of U.S. universities’ faculty members. The Obama administration thought otherwise—and is reaping the benefits in the Muslim world. U.S. universities should take notice. The administration got things started with an address to the National Academy of Sciences in April 2009, during which President Obama announced major initiatives to boost research funding and bolster math and science education. The president called science, “more essential for our prosperity, our security, our health, and our environment than it has ever been.†In November 2009, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton named three prominent U.S. scientists—professors Ahmed Zewail of the California Institute of Technology, Elias Zerhouni of John Hopkins School of Medicine, and Bruce Alberts of the University of California, San Francisco—to serve as the country’s first three Science Envoys as part of President Obama’s “New Beginning†initiative with Muslim communities around the world. In the year since their appointment, the Science Envoys traveled extensively throughout the Middle East, North Africa, and Southeast Asia to identify opportunities to deepen partnerships in science and technology. To further demonstrate the administration’s commitment to science diplomacy, Sen. Richard Lugar (R-IN) announced three additional Science Envoys to Muslim-majority nations—professors Rita Colwell of the University of Maryland, Gebisa Ejeta of Purdue University, and Alice Gast, president of Lehigh University—at CRDF Global’s George Brown Award in September 2010. These news envoys will build upon the work of their predecessors, in new nations including Bangladesh, Malaysia, and Vietnam. The Science Envoys program is one of several recent U.S. science diplomacy initiatives that recognize the important foreign policy benefits of international science engagement. The connection between science and diplomacy may not seem critical, particularly when one considers the very complex web of political, cultural, economic and security issues that modern diplomacy must address. But it is precisely this complexity that requires fresh approaches to building bridges, forging trust and building lasting relationships. What is “science diplomacy†and how can scientists contribute to international peace and security? To some, science diplomacy may be viewed broadly and include, for example, the international collaboration taking place at the Large Hadron Collider in Europe, where nearly 8,000 scientists and engineers—representing 580 universities and research facilities and 80 nationalities—are seeking to unravel the mysteries of subatomic physics. Or consider the bilateral activities that U.S. government agencies are implementing under almost 50 intergovernmental science agreements signed with other countries. While important for solving scientific problems and strengthening international cooperation, these initiatives represent established cooperation among longstanding partners. The uniqueness of President Obama’s “New Beginnings†science diplomacy initiative is its focus on using science as a tool for engaging countries that are emerging from isolation or with which political relations are strained. Science diplomacy involves dialogue, exchanges, and eventually collaboration. It is a long process that requires creativity, patience, and perseverance to achieve success. Mobilizing America’s researchers for science diplomacy makes sense for three reasons. First, many of today’s global challenges—food, water, energy, climate, and health—require technical solutions. Scientists, engineers and innovators must be involved in understanding these problems and then designing and implementing the proposed solutions. In a flat world, scientists must work in partnership with colleagues around the world. Very few of today’s global challenges are confined to any single country. Disease, drought, and environmental degradation know no borders. They can be successfully addressed only through cross-border collaboration. Secondly, U.S. science and technology is highly respected around the world. Recent polling of citizens in Muslim-majority countries shows high regard for U.S. science and technology leadership. This is an area where their citizens seek cooperation with the United States. By building on this interest, the United States can significantly expand opportunities for collaboration. Third, scientists and engineers speak a common language that transcends political, cultural, and economic boundaries. Whether working in the United States, scientists from Russia, Egypt, or Indonesia understand and apply the same formulas and principles. They are driven by an overwhelming interest to discover new knowledge and find solutions to some of today’s most vexing problems. Their ability to forge new pathways of collaboration, often despite difficult political environments, is a valuable tool for diplomacy. Furthermore, as we have seen all around the world, when science and technology flourishes, so do economies. It’s try or die – extinction is inevitable without science-based, multilateral cooperation. Sackett, 10 – former Chief Scientist for Australia, former Program Director at the NSF, PhD in theoretical physics, the Director of the Australian National University (ANU) Research School of Astronomy and Astrophysics and Mount Stromlo and Siding Spring Observatories (2002 – 07) [August 10, 2010, Penny Sackett, “Science diplomacy: Collaboration for solutions,†published in the Forum for Australian-European Science and Technology cooperation magazine, http://www.chiefscientist.gov.au/2010/08/science-diplomacy-collaboration-for-solutions/] Imagine for a moment that the globe is inhabited by a single individual who roams free across outback plains, through rainforests, across pure white beaches — living off the resources available. Picture the immensity of the world surrounding this one person and ask yourself, what possible impact could this single person have on the planet? Now turn your attention to today’s reality. Almost 7 billion people inhabit the planet and this number increases at an average of a little over one per cent per year. That’s about 2 more mouths to feed every second. Do these 7 billion people have an impact on the planet? Yes. An irreversible impact? Probably. Taken together this huge number of people has managed to change the face of the Earth and threaten the very systems that support them. We are now embarked on a trajectory that, if unchecked, will certainly have detrimental impacts on our way of life and to natural ecosystems. Some of these are irreversible, including the extinction of many species. But returning to that single individual, surely two things are true. A single person could not have caused all of this, nor can a single person solve all the associated problems. The message here is that the human-induced global problems that confront us cannot be solved by any one individual, group, agency or nation. It will take a large collective effort to change the course that we are on; nothing less will suffice. Our planet is facing several mammoth challenges: to its atmosphere, to its resources, to its inhabitants. Wicked problems such as climate change, over-population, disease, and food, water and energy security require concerted efforts and worldwide collaboration to find and implement effective, ethical and sustainable solutions. These are no longer solely scientific and technical matters. Solutions must be viable in the larger context of the global economy, global unrest and global inequality. Common understandings and commitment to action are required between individuals, within communities and across international networks. Science can play a special role in international relations. Its participants share a common language that transcends mother tongue and borders. For centuries scientists have corresponded and collaborated on international scales in order to arrive at a better and common understanding of the natural and human world. Values integral to science such as transparency, vigorous inquiry and informed debate also support effective international relation practices. Furthermore, given the long-established global trade of scientific information and results, many important international links are already in place at a scientific level. These links can lead to coalition-building, trust and cooperation on sensitive scientific issues which, when supported at a political level, can provide a ‘soft politics’ route to other policy dialogues. That is, if nations are already working together on global science issues, they may be more likely to be open to collaboration on other global issues such as trade and security. Many countries have recognised the value of science diplomacy. In March this year, the US passed a bill to fund a Global Science Program for Security, Competitiveness and Diplomacy. Earlier, President Obama used his speech in Cairo to announce an expanded team of science envoys in the Middle East, Africa and Southeast Asia. In April, British Foreign Secretary David Miliband made the case for research as a political bridge. In Australia, there are two science envoy posts, one in Brussels and the other in Washington DC. In my own role as Chief Scientist, I engage with researchers and agency heads of other nations to improve Australia’s scientific relations. For example, my recent trip to the United States included a visit with Professor Daniel Kammen, Clean Energy Envoy of the US State Department, and previous trips have established a connection with Chief Scientists and Scientific Academy Presidents in Britain, China, India, New Zealand, and the United States. Central to these diplomatic efforts, is the establishment and continued nurturing of collaboration. Scientific collaboration operates best as a network of individual researchers supported by corporate and government policy and investment. The keys then are forging links at the ground level and providing clear and consistent bi-national and multi-national policy and funding frameworks to sustain these links. And science diplomacy prevents all their impacts from escalating The Royal Society, 10 – a Fellowship of more than 1400 outstanding individuals from all areas of science, mathematics, engineering and medicine, who form a global scientific network of the highest calibre. The Fellowship is supported by over 130 permanent staff with responsibility for the day-to-day management of the Society and its activities. [January, 2010, “New frontiers in science diplomacyâ€] Cooperation on the scientific aspects of sensitive issues may sometimes be the only way to initiate a wider political dialogue. The soft power of science, and the universality of scientific methods, can be used to diffuse tensions even in ‘hard power’ scenarios, such as those relating to traditional military threats. For example, technologies to verify nuclear arms control agreements were a rare focus of joint working between the US and USSR during the Cold War. Lessons from the Cold War are once again highly pertinent. In the run-up to the May 2010 Review Conference of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), nuclear disarmament is firmly back on the international agenda. However, the timescale for disarmament is long, as illustrated by the history of negotiations over the Chemical Weapons Convention. After the Geneva Convention banned the use of chemical weapons in 1925, negotiations for a treaty banning their production and stockpiling did not start until the 1980s, and the convention entered into force only in 1997. Even now, stockpiles of chemical weapons in the US and Russia have yet to be destroyed. So focusing in 2010 on the challenges of the final stages of a nuclear disarmament process may be premature. A more practical next step could be to establish the scientific requirements for the verification regime necessary to support future stages of negotiation (Pregenzer 2008). In 2008, the Norwegian Minister of Foreign Affairs suggested that a high-level Intergovernmental Panel on Nuclear Disarmament could be established (based on the model of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change). This panel could begin by identifying the scientific and technical aspects of disarmament, and then set out a research agenda necessary to achieve them. International cooperation would be essential, both between nuclear and non-nuclear weapon states, as all would need to have confidence that reductions are taking place. The recent initiative between the UK and Norwegian governments on disarmament verifi cation sets a precedent here, and could be expanded to include additional States (VERTIC 2009). However, security threats now extend beyond the military domain, with environmental security attracting particular attention (Abbott C, Rogers P & Sloboda S 2007). Essential resources, such as freshwater, cultivable land, crop yields and fish stocks, are likely to become scarcer in many parts of the world, increasing the risk of competition over resources within and between states (UNEP 2009). This could intensify as previously inaccessible regions, such as the Arctic Ocean, open up as a consequence of climate change and ice melt. Substantial parts of the world also risk being left uninhabitable by rising sea levels, reduced freshwater availability or declining agricultural capacity. Many of the regions that are vulnerable to the impacts of these multiple stresses are already the locus of existing instability and conflict (see Figure 2). 5 Conclusions The main conclusions to emerge from the discussions at the Royal Society/AAAS meeting were as follows: 5.1 The three dimensions of science diplomacy The concept of science diplomacy is gaining increasing currency in the US, UK, Japan and elsewhere. It is still a fl uid concept, but can usefully be applied to the role of science, technology and innovation in three related areas: • informing foreign policy objectives with scientifi c advice (science in diplomacy); • facilitating international science cooperation (diplomacy for science); • using science cooperation to improve international relations between countries (science for diplomacy). 5.2 Science and universal values Scientific values of rationality, transparency and universality are the same the world over. They can help to underpin good governance and build trust between nations. Science provides a non-ideological environment for the participation and free exchange of ideas between people, regardless of cultural, national or religious backgrounds. 5.3 The soft power of science Science is a source of what Joseph Nye terms ‘soft power’ (Nye 2004). The scientific community often works beyond national boundaries on problems of common interest, so is well placed to support emerging forms of diplomacy that require non-traditional alliances of nations, sectors and non-governmental organisations. If aligned with wider foreign policy goals, these channels of scientific exchange can contribute to coalition building and conflict resolution. Cooperation on the scientific aspects of sensitive issues—such as nuclear nonproliferation—can sometimes provide an effective route to other forms of political dialogue. Similarly the potential of science as an arena for building trust and understanding between countries is gaining traction, particularly in the Middle East and wider Islamic world (see Case study 1). 5.4 Motivations for science diplomacy Science diplomacy seeks to strengthen the symbiosis between the interests and motivations of the scientific and foreign policy communities. For the former, international cooperation is often driven by a desire to access the best people, research facilities or new sources of funding. For the latter, science offers useful networks and channels of communication that can be used to support wider policy goals. Foreign ministries should place greater emphasis on science within their strategies, and draw more extensively on scientific advice in the formation and delivery of policy objectives. In the UK, the appointment of Professor David Clary FRS as the Chief Scientific Adviser at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office creates an important opportunity to integrate science across FCO priorities, and develop stronger linkages with science-related policies in other government departments. Mechanisms to help achieve this could include: • ensuring messages about the value of science are promulgated throughout foreign ministries and embassies, including to all Heads of Mission; • incorporating science policy training into induction courses and training for foreign ministry staff, and specialist diplomatic training for dedicated science officers; • involving more scientists in foreign ministries to advise at senior and strategic levels; • encouraging the recruitment of science graduates as part of the general intake to the foreign service; • encouraging secondments and pairing between diplomats and scientists; • encouraging independent scientific bodies to provide science policy briefi ngs for foreign ministry and embassy staff. Specifically, current US science cooperation with Europe solves disease spread, climate change, and ocean degridation. Leshner and Turekian, 9 – *the chief executive officer of the American Association for the Advancement of Science and executive publisher of the journal Science AND **the chief international officer at AAAS and director of its Center for Science Diplomacy [February 2009, Alan I. Leshner and Vaughan Turekian, Editorial, “Europe and the United States: A Crucial Moment for Science Cooperation,†http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/jrc/downloads/jrc_newsletter_2009_02.pdf] Today, however, a new moment of challenge and opportunity awaits the transatlantic alliance. Confronted by financial crisis, unstable energy supplies, an aging population and ominous climate change, a consensus has emerged in both Europe and the United States that we must answer these urgent challenges with substantially increased innovation. And the election of President Barack Obama, with his clear belief in the importance of science to virtually all societal issues, is a clear signal that the United States is poised to bring renewed commitment to the global scientific enterprise. “We will restore science to its rightful place, and wield technology’s wonders to raise health care’s quality and lower its cost,†Obama said in his inaugural address. “We will harness the sun and the winds and the soil to fuel our cars and run our factories. And we will transform our schools and colleges and universi­ ties to meet the demands of a new age. All this we can do. All this we will do.†These are welcome words, and they are sure to galvanise new efforts on both sides of the Atlantic. This is, therefore, a crucial moment for the future of the European­U.S. science and engineering relationship. By themselves, excitement and energy will not address key questions; to chart the way forward, there must be deliberations at high levels of our governments and our research institutions. That is precisely why the American Association for the Advancement of Science and the European Commission’s Joint Research Centre hosted a joint brainstorming at the recent AAAS Annual Meeting in Chicago (12­16 February). An immediate outcome planned for next October will be the signing of a Memorandum of Understanding and the hosting of a high­level AAAS­JRC science summit to mark the 50 th anniversary of the Joint Research Centre’s Ispra site in Italy. Among the many questions for discussion will be how can Europe and the United States develop a shared approach to the policy­making challenges that confront us? How do we allow for both the benefits of creative and economic competition and cohesive, efficient cooperation? As we try to mobilise a large, complex system for action, what are the particular roles of individual scientists and engineers, their labo­ ratories and universities, professional associations and foundations? What role should industry play? Ultimately these discussions between technical and policy experts will provide the connective tissue and critical steps for turning words into action. Science has always been international, of course. Hundreds of years ago, Europe’s rise was shaped by Persian and Arab understanding of mathematics, astronomy and medicine and by Chinese inventions such as printing, the compass and gunpowder. Scientific and technological progress in the early days of America would have been stunted without Europe’s academic excellence and industrial techniques. During the Cold War, bilateral science and technology agreements were crucial in thawing tensions with the Soviet Union and China. Throughout the 20 th century, the transatlantic part­ nership has helped produce historic progress in fields ranging from medicine and genetics to physics, communication and space exploration. Today our students move freely between universities and labs in the United States and Europe; from telescopes high atop Mauna Kea in Hawaii to developing the Large Hadron Collider beneath the Franco­Swiss countryside, our scientists and engineers are working together on important projects. However, as we look to the future, with new technologies making collaboration easier and more productive, a more comprehensive approach to cooperation has become imperative. The intertwined issues of energy and climate change are the most obvious challenge, and the most urgent. They also may be the most obvious examples where international cooperation is a must between various groups in the United States, the Joint Research Centre and other European and world actors. Patterns of energy consumption by industrialised nations are causing global geopolitical instability and profound damage to the Earth’s climate. Finding and implement­ing solutions will require the involvement of scientists from many disciplines, as well as policymakers at every level of governments and in every nation. Many people believe that the United States and Europe must be at the hub of action, if only because they historically have been the biggest sources of greenhouse gases. They must find “an agreed formula†on how to address climate change, Germany’s ambassador to the United States, Klaus Scharioth, said during a recent meeting of European ambassadors at the University of California­Los Angeles. “If we don’t do it, we have not the slightest chance of convincing the Chinese and the Indians and the Brazilians or anybody else.†Ambassador Scharioth’s point applies as well to the way we must approach other global challenges: the health of our oceans and fisheries, the spread and control of infectious disease, improved food production, the development of clean water supplies, and efforts to control the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. While it may be correct that Europe and the United States need to lead these efforts, our research efforts must be opened up as much as possible to all interested nations. That is not just a diplomatic gesture; our researchers stand to gain new insights and research opportunities by working with colleagues in every nation. Nations that just a decade ago were considered ‘Third World’ are today making signifi­ cant investments in scientific research, development and education, and are studying exactly the same problems facing more developed countries, even if the details of the problems facing them are different. Individual scientists and their institutions, both in Europe and the United States, are already involved in a range of cooperative ventures with these nations. But if we make these efforts more systematic, the trans­ atlantic nations can help anchor a global network of scientific knowledge. There is an emerging effort in the United States to use the international character of science to help build trust and cooperation among nations, particularly among those whose governmental relationships have been strained. For example, scholars and scientists in the United States have put ‘science diplomacy’ into practice and recently met with counterparts from North Korea, Iran, and Cuba, among others. Similarly, we need to expand scientific engagement with Russia, China and nations of the Middle East, where coopera­ tion will be crucial if we want to address issues such as climate change, energy and nuclear proliferation on a global scale. Last fall, a group of U.S. elected officials, diplomats, and leaders from science, business and education met in Washington, D.C., to develop strategies for expanded science diplomacy. Like the European ambassadors who met at UCLA, many at that meeting were hopeful that the new Obama Administration will see science diplomacy as a critical tool for solving problems and building global peace and prosperity. These early efforts could begin to reverse the mistrust and hostility that have produced a global stalemate in recent years. As we prepare for the tests ahead, history reminds us that a strong commitment to the Euro­U.S. partnership will give us a foundation for work that will help solve many of the world’s most pressing problems and improve life for our children, our grand­ children, and billions of people on every continent. here's a few
  5. Adding on some more try reason.com & reason.org, which are both libertarian leaning sites that usually make good arguments
  6. I'm currently cutting it and it's pretty awesome, here are a few selections Heg is sustainable – 3 reasons Beckley 12 (Michael Beckley, assistant professor of political science at Tufts University and a fellow at Dartmouth’s Dickey Center for International Understanding; “The Unipolar Era: Why American Power Persists and Why China's Rise is Limitedâ€; dissertation published online; Google Scholar) First, I show that the United States is not in decline. Across most indicators of national power, the United States has maintained, and in some areas increased, its lead over other countries since 1991. Declinists often characterize the expansion of globalization and U.S. hegemonic burdens as sufficient conditions for U.S. relative decline. Yet, over the last two decades American economic and military dominance endured while globalization and U.S. hegemony increased significantly. Second, I find that U.S. hegemony is profitable in certain areas. The United States delegates part of the burden of maintaining international security to others while channeling its own resources, and some of its allies resources, into enhancing its own military dominance. It imposes punitive trade measures against others while deterring such measures against its own industries. And it manipulates global technology flows in ways that enhance the technological and military capabilities of itself and allies. Such a privileged position has not provoked significant opposition from other countries. In fact, balancing against the United States has declined steadily since the end of the Cold War. Third, I conclude that globalization benefits the United States more than other countries. Globalization causes innovative activity to concentrate in areas where it is done most efficiently. Because the United States is already wealthy and innovative, it sucks up capital, technology, and people from the rest of the world Paradoxically, therefore, the diffusion of technology around the globe helps sustain a concentration of technological and military capabilities in the United States. Taken together, these results suggest that unipolarity will be an enduring feature of international relations, not a passing moment in time, but a deeply embedded material condition that will persist for the foreseeable future. The United States may decline because of some unforeseen disaster, bad policies, or from domestic decay. But the two chief features of the current international system – American hegemony and globalization – both reinforce unipolarity. China isn't catching up – they're rising, just not fast enough. Anybody who says otherwise is committing major errors. Beckley 12 (Michael Beckley, assistant professor of political science at Tufts University and a fellow at Dartmouth’s Dickey Center for International Understanding; “The Unipolar Era: Why American Power Persists and Why China's Rise is Limitedâ€; dissertation published online; Google Scholar) The results of this first--â€cut analysis are mixed, but the bulk of the evidence supports the alternative perspective. Over the last twenty years, globalization and U.S. hegemonic burdens have expanded significantly, yet the United States has not declined; in fact it is now wealthier, more innovative, and more militarily powerful compared to China than it was in 1991. China has narrowed the gap in terms of GDP and now exports a greater volume of high--â€technology products and employs more scientists than any country in the world. But GDP correlates poorly with national power; over 90 percent of China’s high--â€tech exports are produced by foreign firms and consist of low--â€tech components; and China’s quantitative advantage in scientists has not yet translated into qualitative advantages in innovation. The United States suffers from an enormous debt problem that its political system currently looks ill--â€suited to solve. But China faces its own fiscal mess, which may be more intractable than America’s. The widespread misperception that China is catching up to the United States stems from several analytical mistakes, the most common being the tendency to conflate growth rates with total growth. For example, some studies note that the growth rates of China’s per--â€capita income, value--â€added in high--â€technology industries, and military spending exceed those of the United States and then conclude that China is catching up. This focus on growth rates, however, obscures China’s decline relative to the United States in all of these categories. China’s growth rates are high because its starting point was low. China is rising, but it is not catching up.
  7. As someone who runs this aff, my thoughts on what I've hit States/F'ism doesn't work (waterways are apparently federal jurisdiction) Note: this also means devolution... Cap seems to link fine, a generic K could work really well. Maybe security if they claim econ & heg. Ptx is fine, but the links are shady The only good DA i've heard about is a tradeoff environment DA that's on OpenEv (haven't actually hit it), the link cards seem pretty good. The i/l problem is mostly about people not actually believing that inland waterways are actually important - the cards I run are pretty decent for the most part
  8. I'm interested in the Nayar argument, but am having trouble understanding how it would relate to a K aff that doesn't use the state, say just does something stupid like increasing intellectual investment. Can you please explain how I would run this argument against a K aff?
  9. Is this what you mean? stability is down now, most recent evidence. Caryl 9/19/12 (Christian Caryl is a senior fellow at the Legatum Institute, a contributing editor at Foreign Policy, and a senior fellow at the MIT Center for International Studies; “The Problem with Patriotismâ€; Foreign Policy) The People’s Republic, meanwhile, has problems of its own. The economy is slowing. Discontent over blatant corruption and widening inequality continues. The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) is preparing for its biggest political transition in more than a decade -- a transition has already been complicated by the scandal surrounding toppled Politburo member Bo Xilai and the recent mysterious disappearance of president-to-be Xi Jinping. There are plenty of rumors swirling around about the growing influence of hard-line nationalists in the military and elsewhere who are eager to impose their own agenda as a new generation of leaders prepares to assume power. If you’re a candidate for one of the top posts, this is not a good time to look like you’re kowtowing to the Japanese.
  10. Case Specific DAs seem to be the thing this year like Copper DA (CCS) Cyber-Terror (NextGen) General Aviation (NextGen) Chinese Steel (HSR) But, seriously generic DAs this year do suck, I'm running Buy America & Federalism and am hoping nobody ever bothers to read the cards on them
  11. Thanks for the help in determining topicality (it's not... and I'm not even going to try)
  12. I cut this the other day. Basically, the aff is that we replace the current TCP protocol for the Internet with one called XRCC (explicit rate based congestion control). https://docs.google.com/open?id=0B9Vw7I5dzI8WY2czazZIUmdHLTg I was just wondering if it was topical? Any help?
  13. Found this the other day - it's 977 pages of Heg good/bad with pretty much every scenario you can find http://ahsdebate.wikispaces.com/file/detail/Big+Ass+Heg+File.docx
  • Create New...